March 23, 2024
Russia and China
just vetoed Biden’s draft resolution on Gaza at the UN Security Council.
Algeria also voted against it.
Though the
resolution fell short of clearly demanding a ceasefire, Moscow and Beijing
nevertheless enable Biden to shift the blame to Russia for the Council’s
inaction, even though Biden has been the key obstacle to progress at the
Council for the last six months.
Though much of
the debate will be on their vetoes, an analysis of the resolution text reveals
both movements in Biden’s position, as well as why his shift remains
insufficient in many aspects.
First of all,
this is significantly stronger than previous American drafts, yet it still
falls short of a clear and unequivocal demand for an unconditional ceasefire.
One one hand, it no longer calls for a ceasefire as soon as practicable, as a
previous U.S. resolution did, which was a remarkably weak formulation. But the
operative clause is still very convoluted and unnecessarily complicated — which
has become the hallmark of everything Biden has done on Gaza:
(The Security
Council) Determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained ceasefire to
protect civilians on all sides, allow for the delivery of essential
humanitarian assistance, and alleviate humanitarian suffering, and towards that
end unequivocally supports ongoing international diplomatic efforts to secure
such a ceasefire in connection with the release of all remaining hostages;
The clause does
not demand a ceasefire but determines that it is imperative. Its support is not
directly for the ceasefire but for the negotiation process the U.S. has been
co-leading and whose parameters the U.S. has sought to determine in favor of
Israel. The text points out that this effort to secure a ceasefire is “in
connection with the release of all remaining hostages.” (Emphasis mine.)
This is an
Israeli demand that is not likely to be accepted by Hamas in return for a
time-limited ceasefire rather than a permanent one. As such, the American draft
endorses the Israeli position in the negotiations and indirectly conditions the
ceasefire on the release of all hostages, effectively making two million
civilian Gazans hostages as well.
Other operative
clauses are stronger and more direct, although they fall short of calling out
Israel by name. For instance, the draft is very strong in:
— “Rejecting…any
forced displacement of the civilian population in Gaza.”
— “Demanding
…that Hamas and other armed groups immediately grant humanitarian access to all
remaining hostages.”
— “Rejecting…
actions that reduce the territory of Gaza, including through the establishment
officially or unofficially of so-called buffer zones.”
— “Condemning …
calls by government ministers for the resettlement of Gaza and rejects any
attempt at demographic or territorial change in Gaza.”
Of course, the
government ministers in question are all Israeli, but the text falls short of
naming Israel. Still, this should arguably commit the U.S. to stopping Israel’s
ongoing efforts to carve territory in Gaza and build buffer zones. Otherwise,
the U.S. will fail to act on demands it itself put into its own UN resolution.
On one crucial
point, though, as UN journalist Rami Ayarihas reported, the text has weakened.
Earlier drafts strongly opposed any Israeli attack on Rafah, but the current
draft has watered down the language and moved it to the preamble, only
expressing “concern that a ground offensive into Rafah would result in further
harm to civilians” instead of demanding that it be prevented.
Note that during
the Security Council debate, US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield made a
critical statement: If Russia puts forward a resolution that does not support
the “diplomacy on the ground” — that is, the diplomatic process co-led by the
US — the Council will remain deadlocked. This is a direct threat by the US to
veto any resolution that doesn’t endorse the US diplomatic process and the
American/Israeli parameters for a ceasefire.
In conclusion,
this is a shift in Biden’s position, but there may be less here than meets the
eye. Undoubtedly, Biden’s rhetorical shift in favor of a ceasefire is
noteworthy, but the devil is in the details. The unnecessarily convoluted
operative clause raises concerns that this shift is less straightforward than
it could and should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment